Agmates

Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2008-04-21

Part 8 – Amendment of Transport Operations (Road User management) Act 1995

Clause 52 Insertion of new s 57AB

(Red Italics added by Agmates)

Extended Liability Offense:

Influencing Person:
(a) in relation to a heavy vehicle means any or all of the following persons;

(i) the owner of the heavy vehicle, or if the heavy vehicle is a combination, the owner of the vehicle forming part of the combination;
(ii) the registered operator of the heavy vehicle, or if the heavy vehicle is a combination, the registered operator of the vehicle forming part of the combination;
(iii) A person, other than the Owner or registered operator, who controls or directly influences the operation of the heavy vehicle: and

Example-
the operator of the heavy vehicle

(b) For an offense against section 162D or relating to a contravention of a mass, or loading requirement involving a heavy vehicle including any or all of the following persons:

(i) The consignor of any goods in the heavy vehicle; (the farmer)
(ii) The packer of any goods in the heavy vehicle; (the farmer)
(iii) The loading manager of any goods in the heavy vehicle; (the farmer)
(iv) The loader of any goods in the heavy vehicle; and (the farmer)

(C) for an offence relating to the contravention of a maximum work requirement or a minimum rest requirement involving a heavy vehicle; including any or all of the following persons;

(i) The employer of the driver of the heavy vehicle;
(ii) A person who schedules the transport of any goods or passengers by the heavy vehicle; (the farmer)
(iii) A person who schedules the work and rest times of the driver of the heavy vehicle; (the farmer)
(iv) The consignor of any goods in the heavy vehicle; (the farmer)
(v) The consignee of any goods in the heavy vehicle; (the farmer)
(vi) The loading manager of any goods in the heavy vehicle; and (the farmer)

(D) for an offense relating to the contravention of a work and rest hours option requirement involving a heavy vehicle; including any or all of the following persons;

(i) the employer of the driver of the heavy vehicle;
(ii) A person who schedules the transport of any goods or passengers by the heavy vehicle;
(iii) A person who schedules the work and rest times of the driver of the heavy vehicle;

(E) an offense relating to the contravention of a work diary requirement involving a heavy vehicle; includes any or all of the following people;

(i) the employer of the driver of the heavy vehicle;
(ii) a person who schedules the transport of any goods or passengers by the heavy vehicle; (read farmer)
(iii) a person who schedules the work and rest times of a driver of a heavy vehicle; (read farmer)

Amendment of Section 57D (Reasonable Steps defense)
(1) Section 57D2 -
Omit

From Whence it Came.

May I begin this presentation with a little explanation as to what this committee was instructed to do. The committee was borne at Conference last year as a result of resolution 90, which stated;

.

“That this Conference of the National Party of Australia-Queensland, calls for the establishment of a sub-committee of the Primary Industry, Trade and Treasury policy Committees to investigate discrepancies in figures between the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics (ABARE) and the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) research which identifies major statistical differences in Agricultural produce exported and that consumed domestically”.

.

After being unanimously carried by Conference at Rockhampton, our previous State President generously proposed myself to chair the duly constituted NPA-Q Agricultural Production Destination Committee. Thus began the process.

Special thanks must go to Dr Mark McGovern who refused to be intimidated by powerful agencies and departments. Consecutive ministers who chose to challenge his credibility rather than question their bureaucrats, consistently ignored his research.

Along with Dr McGovern, other members from academia who so willingly and freely gave of their time are world renowned economists Emeritus Professor Rod Jensen, Emeritus Professor Ted Kolsen and Associate Professor Guy West, who like the Australian Bureau of Statistics were surprised to say the least, at the repeated claim that 80% of our agricultural production is exported.

It is most important to mention that not one of these esteemed gentlemen participated for any personal gain and that they are internationally regarded in this particular field of economics.

My committee also should be thanked. In particular the chairman of the Economics committee Rolf Mitsdorffer, a person whose integrity and objectivity is an example for us all.

Mark Mazzanti and Dick Jeremy for their valuable contribution, their persistence and their no ‘nonsense’ approach. I have come to admire these men for their intelligence and strength and they are not bad blokes as well.

During the year our State President repeatedly offered encouragement to me, though his personal contribution was limited by his relentless effort to be every where in our great State.

I must extend our gratitude to one Bob Katter MP. Bob was responsible for gaining departmental approval for the ABS to travel to Brisbane and meet with our committee at Customs House on that historic day in May. We might even call the resultant agreement the Bob Katter Customs House Agreement.

Finally I would like to point out that each and every delegate to these Queensland National Party Conferences, can feel justifiably proud for having encouraged democracy to function as it ought.

Without the power brought to bear at a forum such as this through an organisation like ours, this critical issue may never have been resolved. We are part of a truly wonderful structure in this great Queensland National Party.

Findings.

Who said What

When the committee began its work we discovered that numerous organisations claimed various levels of agricultural exports;

• The Parliamentary library came up with figures of up to 200%,
• The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade after some time finally settled on a draft paper suggesting about 66%,
• The Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics when pushed concurred with about 66%. However, in their Farm Stats 2000 publication and earlier, they have claimed 80%,
• The National Farmers Federation claimed 80%,
• The Queensland Farmers Federation repeatedly claimed publicly 75% or 80%,
• Most of our politicians from all parties publicly supported 80% and subsequently accepted 66% when DFAT finally came good with a set of draft numbers. (Politicians depend on advice from their minders and departmental bureaucrats, therefore the actual percentage value of exports becomes a critical issue for policy development),
• The Queensland University of Technology’s research project by Dr McGovern indicated 22 % direct exports.

Our committee felt that to confirm or refute McGovern’s findings some further knowledge and authority should be engaged. Specialist economists, after initial investigations, were very much in agreement with the lower figures as concluded by Dr. McGovern.

Our committee then sought to discover the source of the various ‘stated beliefs’ and these all led to The Australian Bureau of Statistics. (ABS)

ABARE’s response to our early approach for clarification prompted a statement to the effect that we do not have the specialist (input-output) skill to undertake such work. We source this kind of information from ABS.

DFAT, as well confirmed ABS as their source.

All paths led to ABS.

Now What.

Phone discussions with ABS showed that two departments existed inside ABS that deal with this information. The Agricultural Statistics section were themselves perplexed. In fact, one of the gentlemen from Ag stats rang me to say he had heard on radio somebody claim 90% exported. He could not believe his ears.

The second ABS department involved is National Accounts. This was to be an interesting chapter of our investigation.

National Accounts, we discovered, had been somehow involved in the draft DFAT position paper suggesting 66%. This was in direct conflict with the previous head of National Accounts who confirmed Dr McGoverns research.

When I spoke to her prior to last conference, she was ecstatic that at last something meaningful may be done about this 80% myth which has permeated the minds of politicians, bureaucrats and the Australian public.

As no one was prepared to move from their stated position, it was clear that a meeting was needed to reconcile the wide differences that had now emerged. When approached, ABS agreed to a face to face meeting, but in Canberra.

All who are sitting here today know of the costs involved with travel and accommodation associated with committees. However with Bob Katter’s considerable efforts ABS staff gained approval to meet with us in Brisbane. I should also thank minister Hockey’s office for their co-operation in allowing this meeting to take place.

At the end of the Customs House Meeting, the committee had established the facts, and the subsequent agreement of proceedings became known as the Customs House Agreement.

The Customs House Agreement

• It is unequivocally agreed that for the year 93/94 that only 22% of farm gate value is directly exported from Australia.
• It is agreed that direct exports, together with the first round total of indirect exports, roughly account for 25% or an additional three percentage points,
• All agreed that those who propose the higher figures like 80% are simply wrong,
• ABS agreed that 66% was questionable and problematic ,and
• ABS would not arrive at 66% figures using accepted methods,
• Only 7 of 53 sectors exported more than 50% of output,
• All agreed the real proportion of exports as shown by Dr McGovern was well known for some time,
• Figures such as 80% use FOB values to compare with farm gate values,
• Some calculations have led to double counting or have included inappropriate components which have distorted outcomes,
• Errors occur when comparing value added items like biscuits in a container on board ship with wheat at farm gate or perhaps a bottle of wine on board ship with the value of grapes at farm gate,
• In some cases inappropriate basis are used eg. the value of spraying or shearing being added to exports of wool, grain or cotton,
• Other examples of double counting occur when such things as sausages consumed by coal and steel miners in their respective industries are classified as exported agricultural production.

All these definitional and methodological anomalies distort real farm gate values. Some extreme methods of calculation have arrived at up to 200% of farm gate value exported.

Ramifications / Considerations.

Several important ramifications flow from the confirmation that we export significantly less than 80%.

There certainly is a need to circumvent misinformation.

We need to question how and why the 80% myth gained so much creditability, through consecutive governments, despite repeatedly being told of the error.

Does a sufficient level of skill exist within the bureauracy to provide governments with the information that they require?.

Is the public service truly independent?.

Does it offer government advice on policy framework reflecting fact, not actively building numbers to support particular partisan positions which leads to inappropriate policy development?.

Is there a need for an independent Department/Office capable of informing government of the needs of rural and regional Australia which can specify policy development that recognises the true role of agriculture in the Australian economy?.

The false logic in our current industry policies can be found in a quote by the National Farmers Federation in the February 2000 edition of the ‘Farm Journal’

.

“With nearly 80% of gross value of production sold on export markets, Australian agriculture is trade dependent. No other single issue could potentially lift the profitability and investment in rural Australia than reform of world farm trade”

.

Or from some of our politicians who claim “Australia doesn’t need four out of five of its farmers”,

Such comments are simply incorrect. Three out of four farmers produce for the domestic market.

Ladies and gentlemen, now that the facts have been established, and they are without doubt, that Australian agriculture sells its production mainly to Australians, the most important question is quite simple.

What are we going to do about it?.

Thank you.

Chairman: Rowell Walton

.

This is the Hansard record of debate that followed QLD Transport Minister John Mickels reply to a full afternoon and evening of MP’s speaking to the Transport Legislation Amendment Act. These are the final speaches laeding up to the vote which passed the bill on the 14th may 2008. Bureaucratic

Mr Tim NICHOLLS Lib Shadow minister for transport.(8.42 pm): Clause 56 inserts new sections 57DA to 57DD. The clause contains matters that the court can consider in deciding whether someone took reasonable steps in relation to mass, dimension or loadings under 57DA and in relation to driver fatigue under 57DB. New section 57DC relates to reasonable steps.

A number of regulations are outlined, particularly in relation to new section 57DD, which states-
For sections 57DB and 57DC, a regulation may provide for-

(a) the ways, or examples of ways, a person may identify and assess the aspects of activities of the person…

(b) the measures, or examples of measures, a person may take to eliminate or minimise risks…

I thank the minister for his willingness to make officers of the department available to explain the operation of the reasonable steps defence for consignors and consignees. While he has covered part of this in his address in reply, could the minister give practical examples of how the regulation will work?

For example, in what way could a person show that they have taken reasonable steps? Fundamentally, this clause is the one that will make it all hang together. If the regulations that this clause introduces do not work, drivers, consignors, consignees and loaders will be particularly vulnerable.

Mr John MICKEL Lab Minister for Transport: I restate for the honourable gentleman and for the record that the offer is available to all members who want to participate in such a session.

The member asked for a couple of examples and I will provide them for the House:

• workplace procedures and policies that relate to fatigue and compliance with work and rest hours;
• contingency planning in relation to fatigue and work and rest hours;
• a program to report and monitor fatigue related incidents, risks and hazards;
• a program for assessing driver fitness for duty;
• training and information for drivers, staff and parties in the chain of responsibility about fatigue and compliance with work and rest hours;
• appropriate supervision of the management of drivers, staff and parties in the chain of responsibility;
• allowing for traffic or other delays in scheduling, which is an example that a lot of members raised; a system
• for giving drivers sufficient notice of schedule changes;
• a system to maintain equipment, work systems and work records;
• compliance assurance conditions in relevant commercial arrangements with other parties in the chain of responsibility;
• avoiding incentives or demands in commercial arrangements, which I think might be the flash point where a lot of people could get into trouble;
• avoiding incentives or demands in commercial arrangements that may cause fatigue or breaches of work rest hours;
• and, obviously, a system for monitoring and remedying problems related to fatigue and work rest hours.

In answer to the honourable member for Clayfield, those are the examples that I can give off the top of my head.

I say to the honourable gentleman, the opposition and the Independents that if people from their electorates raise other practical examples, our officers will be available to take members through those various incidents.

Mr NICHOLLS: I thank the minister for his willingness to make officers available and for those examples.

New section 57DD deals with the measures that a person needs to take in order to assess the fatigue of the driver.

The member for Toowoomba South covered this issue in his speech. He spoke about how someone loading six decks of cattle can practically assess whether the driver will be in contravention of fatigue regulations.

I understand the systems that the minister has mentioned, and they would probably work well for the big operators that run road trains such as an AA company. Large operators would have the capacity and the sophistication to run those systems.

However, someone working at Gregory Downs or up in the gulf country will not be a part of that type of operation. It is important for the regulations to consider those consignors or loaders who may not have the capacity to implement a systems based approach.

A number of people have referred to a report released by Agmates, which I also have looked at. The Agmates report refers to a consignor being held responsible for manslaughter. As I read the legislation, the chain of responsibility-and for the sake of clarity I would ask the minister to say yes or no to this-only relates to offences under this legislation.

Is it right that under this legislation there is no reverse onus of proof or chain of responsibility with respect to, say, a manslaughter charge which would relate to a criminal prosecution, and the Agmates release is false insofar as it relates to that particular area?

Mr MICKEL: I will clarify it. The member is asking a fair question that he should take back to his constituents. The advice given to me in relation to that offence is that that would not happen.
Clause 56, as read, agreed to.
Clauses 57 to 60, as read, agreed to.
Clause 61-

.

Mr NICHOLLS (8.49 pm): Clause 61 is one that has excited considerable comment and has been the subject of a number of releases and comments by AgForce in particular which seeks to remove section 150AB(1)(d)(v) and (vi). Subsection (1)(d)(v) and (vi) states-

rules requiring any or all of the following persons to ensure drivers of fatigue regulated heavy vehicles comply with a regulation under this part- …
(v) consignors or consignees of goods in the vehicles;
(vi) loading managers of goods in the vehicles.

Effectively it is a regulation-making power that enables the government, through a regulation, to set rules about what a consignor or consignee or a loading manager must do in order to ensure compliance with the fatigue management rules.

I would like the minister to clarify that that is, in fact, the purpose of it: that it brings consignors, consignees and loaders within the ambit of the regulation-making power.

In this respect the regulation would again need to provide for innocent consignors and consignees-that is, unsophisticated consignors and consignees who do not know the system.

For example, if someone gets transferred from Brisbane to Mount Isa and they pack up their house and put it in a container that gets loaded on the back of a truck that then heads up to Mount Isa, that family would not be sophisticated or cognisant of the rules relating to it. They have a contract with the company to do that.
In those circumstances does the minister envisage that the regulations would be able to accommodate those unsophisticated consignors or consignees or the people who may be infrequent users but who otherwise would be caught by the regulation?

Mr MICKEL: The member has asked three questions. I am advised that the answer to the first question that the member asked is yes.

In relation to the example that the member gave, as part of the education process we will be giving advice to people in the industry on the codes and procedures to assist them. We can even provide advice on whether the contracts that they enter into can protect them.
This is very much part of the education process. This is where I see huge value in having a briefing session with those opposite so that as they interact with the industry and go back to their electorates they will have a raft of examples. I do not want to cause any angst to those people. We are happy to work with them. We will listen to them and provide advice on codes and procedures.

Mr Mike HORAN NAP Shadow minister for Ag : I appreciate the offer of the briefing but it is important for us to get these matters on the record in the debate in parliament. We have to bring up the concerns of the people who are worried and put them on the record. However, we do appreciate the offer of a briefing.
This clause worries many people. I spoke about it in my contribution. It is hard to understand how this can be done at times. A consignee may have four or five decks that arrive at 10 o’clock at night from the north-west to a feedlot or a backgrounding block on the downs. They can be out there with a torch in the middle of the night.

What happens if the trucks have trouble, with cattle down, 50 kilometres away and the driver has run out of time? Does he stay there and let the cattle suffer or does he push on the 50 kilometres and get there?

If he is over time, what does the farmer who has bought and is receiving the cattle do? Does he actually become a de facto policeman? Does he say, ‘I am going to dob you in. I am going to report you’? Is he doing the work of the police and the Department of Transport? What will happen to a consignee in that case?

Even a consignor could say to the driver, ‘You have got here a bit late. You are not going to make it.’ Does he have to stop the driver from going? If the driver goes, where does he stand? I think the whole thing is pretty impractical.

Mr Vaughan JOHNSON NAP Member for Gregory: As the opposition spokesmen, the member for Toowoomba South, has pointed out, this is an integral part of this legislation. I highlighted this part of the legislation in my address this afternoon. Section (1)(a) states-

rules requiring drivers of fatigue regulated heavy vehicles to take stated minimum periods of rest and to work no longer than stated maximum periods;

In many areas of the state this is not practical at all because the stated areas of rest are not convenient for heavy vehicle drivers to be able to pull over. This is a real area of concern and one where drivers can be penalised to the maximum because rest areas are not available.

The rules require that drivers be in a fit state of health and wellbeing to drive fatigue regulated heavy vehicles safely. I believe that this is a slur on the reputation of drivers. In this modern day and age we are talking about a professional industry, an industry where people do care and are responsible in the carrying out of proper workmanship in their workplace.

I can assure members that these people go about their business in a very professional and dedicated manner. Heavy vehicle operators, regardless of where they are in this state, are amongst some of the most professional drivers we have in this land.

The real issue here is in section (1)(d)(i) and (ii) which states-
rules requiring any or all of the following persons to ensure drivers of fatigue regulated heavy vehicles comply with a regulation
under this part-
(i) employers of the drivers;
(ii) operators of the vehicles;

In relation to the employers of the operators, whilst the employers are the persons who employ these drivers, the responsibility always comes back to the driver. Whether the driver is out on the Barkly Highway between Mount Isa and Camooweal or whether the driver is between Gympie and Maryborough on the Bruce Highway, the onus always comes back to the driver in charge of that heavy vehicle.

I ask the minister why the rules require all of the named persons to ensure that drivers of fatigue regulated heavy vehicles comply with a regulation under this part? I think that the real problem lies with the driver. I know that the owners of the vehicles or the company operators are responsible for the operation, but once that driver gets out on the road he or she is in charge of that vehicle and is the person in jeopardy if there is a breach of the Transport Act. They are the ones who lose the three demerit points or cop the fine. The industry is in such a fragile state because of the purging of these drivers.

Mr HORAN: I asked questions along these lines to the minister previously but I just want to add to it. Paragraph (2) on page 52 states-
The power to make a regulation providing for rules requiring a person to ensure something includes the power to provide for rules-
(a) requiring a person to take all reasonable steps to ensure the thing; and
(b) otherwise encouraging the person to take action that will in effect ensure the thing.

It might be a caretaker receiving cattle in the yard who really does not know what it is all about, or it might be a jackeroo or someone who has been sent down. What is going to happen to some of these people if the driver is booked for something? Is the caretaker who was there to see that the cattle were unloaded going to be in trouble? What will be considered reasonable action? They actually have to take almost a police type action as a person.

The whole making of this regulation and the way in which it is put together will be so important. I said in my speech that it almost needs to be like a docket you sign to say that you have received the goods in good order; it needs to be simple and practical.

Mr NICHOLLS: I will not labour the point; it has been made time and time again. In the minister’s response he referred to the national legislation.

I referred to clause 32 and the minister said that was going to form the basis of the regulations that were going to be implemented. Will that regulation be a part of the regulations the minister envisages under this section? Is that how the minister envisages the national model regulation would be implemented? Is that under section 150AB?

In that circumstance, do we need to go through this national legislation to see if the issues about the consignor or the consignee actually checking the logbook are covered in this regulation?

Mr MICKEL: I will try to take the members through a couple of things in my non-legal way. I guess the defence is ‘reasonable steps’.

Some of the examples used by the member for Toowoomba South-
where a person did not know-would be a defence of a reasonable step. There is no capacity to influence the outcome, so that would be a reasonable defence. I am trying to capture the essence of the three opposition members, so I will give the examples given to me and we will see how we go from there.

I think the member for Toowoomba South, or it was possibly the member for Gregory, talked about the standard hours. If an offence under standard hours could have been avoided if the driver had taken a short break, it is a defence if the driver can prove that at the time when the driver was required to take the short rest there was no suitable rest place. I think that covers what both members were saying-that the park was full, the guy was not there, whatever.

It is also a defence if the driver took the short rest break at the next suitable rest place available after this time on the forward route of the driver’s journey. In a situation where he goes to pull in and it is full or unsuitable, it is a defence if he can prove that.

There has to be an attempt to influence illegal behaviour or a breaking of fatigue management-or to reasonably know that what you were doing was in defiance of the fatigue management. I am trying to capture the essence of the three members. I think that is about where we sit.

Mr JOHNSON: I do not want to labour this point, and I thank the minister for his forthrightness and honesty in trying to address this. This is an integral part of and a very contentious issue in relation to heavy vehicle operation. I again say that these drivers are trying to do the right thing.

We are seeing at the moment that many of these drivers are vacating the industry because of the complexity of the law and the law as it has existed in the past. Many of them are finding alternative forms of income outside the heavy transport industry.

As a result, we are losing these professional people and we are in fear now of seeing less-than-professional operators operate these vehicles.

I say to the minister tonight-I have raised this with officers in his department before, and these are people for whom I have immense respect and who understand exactly where I come from-that in the past a lot of drivers have had the book thrown at them in relation to logbook claims, where they have been three or four weeks out or there has been a breach.

The police in particular can go back through the logbooks and find that a driver has not put in the right name of a property or a town, or highlight something that is not right or see where the driver has left something out.

The driver then cops the three demerit points or the fine. I find this absolutely deplorable when it comes to professional ethics. We are losing many drivers, these really professional people in the industry, because they fear they will lose their licence.

What chance do these operators have of being able to present their case to the department of transport, even if it is two, three or six months later, by saying, ‘This is exactly what happened. I lost my licence for this breach but it is a minor issue’? These are truly professional people. There is no other industry in this country where people in this type of employment are subjected to this type of scrutiny.

I think this is a very important issue. As I said this afternoon, the general secretary of the TWU, Hughie Williams, is right on this case talking about driver fatigue and road safety. I agree with him, but at the same time we do not want to be driving the good people out of the industry for the sake of not being able to have recompense or not being able to come back.

Minister, what chance have we got of expunging some of those petty issues so we can keep this industry flowing and save the inconveniences we will see?

Mr MICKEL: There are two aspects to it. I did answer much of the member’s concern, but I think he was out of the House for my summing-up.

I am advised that we are working with new drivers coming into the industry through our capability unit to help them address some of these issues. Also, we can review any penalties. If the member brings them forward to us, we will review them and see if people were dealt with harshly.

The Final vote on the bill:

The AYES, 50-Attwood, Barry, Bombolas, Choi, Darling, Fenlon, Fraser, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lawlor, Lee, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Nelson-
Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Finn

The NOES, 28-Copeland, Cripps, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington.
Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson
Resolved in the affirmative.

Agmates Editor Steve Truman writes:

Yesterdays Newspoll has revealed that under Jeff Seeney’s Leadership if a QLD State election were held now the QLD Nationals would be decimated.

The poll revealed that the Nationals would lose a swag of seats and face the real possibility of being the junior coalition party.

As an indication of just how badly the Nationals are doing under Seeney’s leadership, the Liberals despite their internal leadership turmoil saw their primary vote jumping 5% to 26%.

The Nationals primary vote has slumped to just on 9% the lowest it has been since late 2002.

A high profile National Party figure who asked not to be named, told Agmates “Seeney has to go. It just amazes the Party members that you never hear anything from him.”

“Where has he been during the uproar over the rape of the 10 year old girl at Aurukun? What is he doing to hold the QLD government and their agencies accountable for this outrageous failure of the system?” the unnamed source said.

Jeff Seeney heads off on 4 weeks holiday on Monday the 24th, he is either expected to step down as leader or face a leadership challenge on his return to work on Monday the 21st of January.

Agmates sources within the National Party expect the new leader will come from one of 3 MP’s.

Former leader Lawrence Springborg will naturally be considered, but in reality he comes with two much baggage to lead a party desperate to reinvigorate itself.

Mr Springborg has had his turn and in the finish he resigned as leader because he just could not make any impression on Peter Beatties Labor governments strangle hold on Queensland. Jeff Seeney took over the Leadership role from Springborg with a clear message from the party to do whatever it took to present the party as a viable alternative government to the Queensland people.

On top of the drubbing that the Nationals got at the 2006 state election where under Seeney’s Leadership, they failed to make any inroads on an embattled Beattie labor government, this latest Newspoll is the death knell of his leadership of the party.

Nationals deputy Leader Fiona Simpson is expected to be in the running and would bring a fresh face and a work ethic to the Leadership.

The other contender for the Leadership position is expected to be first termer and member for Gympie David Gibson.

Mr Gibson is a former Newspaper executive from the Rural Press stable who was one of their corporate rising stars until he quit his position to stand for the National Party in the seat of Gympie.

He ran an extremely professional campaign which saw him easily defeat popular sitting Independent Elisa Roberts.

“David’s parliamentary performance in his first term has been very impressive and he has been spoken about as a future leader,” a party executive who asked not to be named told Agmates.

Once the Nationals sort out their leadership role they can then consider the prospect of forming a new coalition Party.

Deputy Nationals Leader Fiona Simpson told Agmates, “Yes I support the idea of a Nationals and Liberals joining forces to create a new Conservative party, as long as that party upholds and incorporates the core values of the National Party”.